Is Globalization Changing World Politics - Essay Example

Global Politics Q1 Is globalization changing world politics? Ans Yes. Globalization resulted in widening markets and complicating economic structures and present political states have to adjust themselves to respond to the consequences of the changes. Globalization has its own economic and political rules and as it spreads across borders, it takes along with it these structures imposing themselves upon states embracing globalization. Whereas pre-globalization, a state dominated everything within its borders, globalization has forced the state to accommodate the imposition of globalization. The state is compelled by deregulation requirements, opening its markets to transnational corporations and other regulations imposed upon it by the World Trade Organization. Thus, sovereignty, to such an extent is eroded; the state compromises some of its powers; actors other than the state take center stage; additional security issues have to be taken into consideration like transnational crimes, international terrorism, refugees and the like . Q2 How does neo-liberalism build on classical liberalism? Ans.: Classical liberalism is liberalism that is centered on the individual and the capacity of that individual to make the right choices for his own self that eventually reflects and redound to the good and benefit of society in general. Both classical liberalism and neo-liberalism are founded on the basic tenets of freedom but while classical liberalism is individual-centered, neo-liberalism depends on the state to impose laws that promote free trade and market liberalism. The state does not leave it up to the individuals but takes the initiative to promote free trade where the individuals have as much as possible unfettered economic freedom and the state as little as possible role. Neo-liberalism, which was popularized sometime in the 1980s, is an offshoot of classical liberalism which is an older concept. Q3 Is ‘national interest” a useful concept for understanding the actions of states? Ans.: Yes, because the actions of states or state strategies are supposed to be primarily geared for the protection and promotion of the national interest. In this sense, it is therefore important to understand exactly what the national interest or interests are for the deeper understanding of the motivations of the actions of a particular state. Although the exact nature of national interest will depend largely on the time and period and sometimes from a subjective point of view, the concept of national interest almost always includes the following: the state’s jurisdiction, patrimony; assets and resources; national and cultural values, and; national goals and alliances. Q4 What are the causes of war? Ans.: There are several theories. the psychological theory believes that man by nature is violent, an instinct that must find an outlet like war; the sociological theory, or war is actually a domestic problem (social, economic and political) which must find solution outside its borders; the demographics theory believes that overpopulation and the corresponding lack of natural resources causes war or that there is an overproduction of males with no gainful employment and war must be resorted to; the evolutionary psychology theory, or that war is spurred by an attack or by a bleak anticipation of the future; the rationalist theory or that war happened because the two sides believed that in order to prevail there is no other option but war; the economic theories believe that war is a means to gain more economic resources, and; Marxist theories believe that a war is just an offshoot of a class war. Q5 Is terrorism best described as ‘a tactic of the powerless against the powerful (Kegley and Witkopf)? Ans.: Yes, history is replete with illustrations that terrorism is used as a tool by the powerless to get the attention of the powerful. Since they cannot pit powers with the stronger party in an open armed conflict, the powerless groups resort to the treacherous tactics of terrorism. Their purpose is to induce a state of fear in a manner that is not in accordance with the accepted norm of battles and without sparing non-combatants and unarmed civilians. Publicity is a part of terrorism. Some of the causes of terrorism are” political like the Basques in Spain who wanted statehood for themselves and the IRA in Northern Ireland; religious extremism by the likes of the Sikh in India as well as the Hamas in Palestine and in the recent past by the Al Qaeda. Q6 In what ways do ‘non-state actors’ represent a challenge to the state system? Ans.: Globalization has caused the massive mobilization of resources, people, ideas and information across borders. Thus economic and political non-actors are able to penetrate borders beyond their own. But even without physically transporting themselves to a host state, state-of-the-art technologies, like satellite and cable television, and the internet, are available to reach people in a host state. The presence of all these non-state actors (the NGOs, the IGOs, the INGOs, MNCs) pose a challenge to the usual state-centric system of a host country. These groups exert pressure on the host state by influencing public opinion. Economic non-state actors like the TNCs and the MNCs, using economic leverage, exert economic pressure upon the state to modify its economic policies. Political non-state actors, on the other hand, like the Amnesty International, or environmental, like the Greenpeace, can exert pressure on the host state to reshape its economic and environmental agenda (Richmond & Carrey 2005 p 57). Q7 What is the best explanation for the persistence of the income and power gulf between the ‘Global North’ and the’ Global South’? Ans.: The best explanation for the South/North divide lies in history. Most of the countries in the global south were once colonies of the European powers. Their colonization affected these countries’ ability to fend for themselves. They were unused to thinking for themselves. When the colonists left them, it became an endless struggle for power. Thus, for centuries, a cycle of power grabbing and political strife characterized these countries. When capitalism spread, poor countries became poorer and rich countries richer. The former were ill-equipped to deal with capitalism with their governmental structures concentrating power and capital in the hands of a few. The cold war which polarized countries into the Soviet bloc and the US allies intensified suffering with their repression by either one of the superpowers. Poverty has become so ingrained in their system that it was doubly difficult for these nations to get out of it. Q8 Why is ‘human security’ in tension with ‘national security’ (Kegley and Wittkopf)? Ans.: Human security will always be in tension with national security because while the latter is concerned with the security of the state as a whole, including its territorial integrity and jurisdiction, human security is concerned with the economic, social and political welfare of the individual. Human security therefore limits national security when the latter tends to infringe upon the rights of the individual. In addition, the primacy of human security puts the state in a dilemma whether to go beyond its borders when the security of an individual or groups of individual outside of its jurisdiction are threatened. Since national security necessarily confined the state within its boundaries, the question is whether it should extraterritorially stretch an arm to such individual or groups of individuals. Q9 How does the metaphor of the commons explain the global ecological situation? Ans.: The ‘tragedy of the commons’ was a metaphor used by Garrett Hardin in 1968 to show a pressing need to undertake major policies affecting the environment. Hardin was concerned that overpopulation would lead to the ruin of the environment. He likened the environment to the commons and postulated that if all of the herders would add a few animals to graze on the commons, such herder would profit with respect to the additional animals but in the long run the quality of the commons would diminish. Such is the tragedy of the commons with everybody suffering the results of the overuse of the commons. Applying that to the present global situation, it would mean that if all of the people would each take advantage of the natural resources recklessly, the earth’s ecology will eventually take the toll (Mulder & Copolillo 2005 p 132). Q10 Why is it so difficult to measure power in international relations? And.: Power is difficult to measure in international relations because not only is power not reducible to one dimension but it has properties which cannot be reduced quantitatively. Since there is no agreed definition and criteria for power, the common recourse for researchers is to redefine the concept of power in measurable and tangible terms. Thus power is redefined in terms of its resources - the ability to move and possess such resources - and therefore, reducing it to property which is not accurate because relations cannot be equated with property. Politics, for one, cannot be converted to any currency. In measuring power the researcher is necessarily limited to measurable and tangible data like the GDP, sometimes adding other measures like demographics and military statistics, which according to Frey, still amount to property and therefore, inconsistent with the notion of relations (Carlsnaes et al 2002 p. 181). References Carlsnaes, Walter & Risse, Thomas & Risse-Kappen, Thomas & Simmons, Beth A. 2002. Handbook of International Relations. SAGE, p 181. Richmond, Oliver P. & Carey, Henry F. 2005. Subcontracting Peace: The Challenges of NGO Peacebuilding, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., pp 56-57. Held, David & McGrew, Anthony 2007 Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide. Polity, pp 59-60 Mulder, Monique & Coppolillo, Peter 2005 Conservation: Linking Ecology, Economics, and Culture. Princeton University Press, p 132 Read More